Pubdate: Sun, 31 Dec 2000
Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (AR)
Copyright: 2000 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.
Contact:  121 East Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201
Website: http://www.ardemgaz.com/
Forum: http://www.ardemgaz.com/info/voices.html
Author: Meredith Oakley
Note: Associate Editor Meredith Oakley's column appears every Monday, 
Wednesday, Friday and Sunday.
Related: A Nomination to Oppose
http://www.drugsense.org/dsw/2000/ds00.n180.html#sec1
Ashcroft Nomination for Attorney General Bodes Ill for Drug Policy Reform
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/166.html#ashcroft

DON'T WAIT TOO LONG TO CHANGE HATS

At one time, I would have advised young people with any ambition at
all to live each day as though they were destined to be president.

The point was to fashion a life and a lifestyle that would withstand
public scrutiny. It sounds a rather quaint notion now, doesn't it?
These days, it would seem that if one has the proper balance of charm
and glibness and cleans up nicely, success is well within reach.

Possibly. Of course, this depends on one's definition of
success.

Ambition is a funny thing. Usually, man being what he is, the more you
have, the more you want. Few truly ambitious people can say no to
unexpected opportunities for advancement, even from the comfortable
niche of already great accomplishment.

Stay with me. I really do know where I'm going with this.

George W. Bush has begun naming his cabinet. Considering how long it
took him to reach the point at which he could do so without fear of
being branded presumptuous, he's doing so with remarkable speed and
efficiency.

His critics aren't slackers, either. They've already gleaned that U.S.
Sen. John Ashcroft, the Missouri Republican who lost his re-election
bid to a dead man, is the best first target of what they hope will be
many who will be tapped for greater service to the nation by the
president-elect.

Good choice, Ashcroft. Early reports are painting him as a Johnny Reb
racist of the highest order.

Well, all right, maybe not the highest order. But he certainly holds
much promise when one considers the record as cited by The Associated
Press last week.

An AP "review" of his writings, speeches and interviews over the years
unearthed the startling revelations that Ashcroft:

Opposed channeling federal money into drug treatment programs, arguing
that government assistance "shouldn't further the 'lowest and least'
conduct."

Advocated that charities take a greater role in assisting the
needy.

Fought "vigorously" against abortion rights.

Opposed using federal funds to provide job training for people who
lack a high school diploma.

Absolutely shocking. Totally unacceptable in a man who would aspire to
become attorney general of the United States.

Ah, but there's more, and it's far worse than championing the right to
life and charitable works or decrying drug treatment programs that
replace one addiction with another and training programs for people
who won't even apply themselves to earning a basic certificate of education.

Did you know that Ashcroft once hailed felled Confederate leaders as
"patriots"?

Which, in the scheme of things as they existed in the Civil War era,
was precisely what folks like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and
Jefferson Davis were. Their loyalties lay with the South, not with the
North. Only the war's outcome distinguished the patriots from the
traitors. It's a point-of-view thing.

Personally, I'm tired of all this quibbling about a war that was
fought more than a century ago. The South lost and the North won.
Although each side had its patriots, no one alive today had any part
in that 19th century political schism, so get over it.

What, after all, is a patriot? Simply stated, it is a person who
loves, supports and defends his country. For a time, the country of
Lee and Jackson and Davis was the Confederate States of America, not
the United States of America.

Actually, Ashcroft made a distinction that is not being emphasized by
his critics. Specifically, he referred to these Confederate leaders as
Southern patriots. That's a simple statement of fact that no amount of
revisionism can change, even in these oh so politically correct times.

But Ashcroft added fuel to the fire in his future--these matters of
which I speak didn't exactly occur last month or even last year--when
he declined to sign the final report of a federal commission that
studied the plight of nonwhites in America.

Ashcroft, a member of that commission, whose work was concluded fully
12 years ago, contended that the report was too selective in scope,
addressing the plight of some minorities and ignoring that of others.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I haven't read it. But this belated
reaction to it seems a bit overblown to say the least. In any event,
we'll know for sure once Senate confirmation hearings get under way.

There's got to be a moral here somewhere. Maybe it's that you should
not wait too long to rise above your station in life--change hats, as
it were--for you will be judged by your history. How you will be
judged, however, may not be in the context of how that history was
compiled.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake